Page 254 - Eden Meadow 35 houses application as of 12 October

Land to the Rear of Eden Meadows David Huskisson – Consultee Response

2.6 Planting mixes and their management as prescribed through the LBMS have sought to deter
parking trespass.

6) The “axial view” south through the site from the A2 does
not look convincing on plan and appears constricted by
flanking development, tree planting and the play area.

2.7 The central core space has been widened in order to reduce a perception of appearing
constricted in southward views through the Site.

7) The central sharp bend in the access appears rather
arbitrary but might be made to look more appropriate if
careful earthworks design suggested it was a “natural”
route and was also responsive to the drainage basin.

2.8 Reprofiling of the landform has been incorporated in the revised scheme layout, in part to
invoke a more naturalised feel to the bend in the road.

8) The garage to unit 17 is very unfortunate in how it intrudes
into the rear garden space and the associated driveway
seems excessive.

2.9 The scheme layout has since been altered.

9) The rear gardens to units 12-15 are rather fussy.

2.10 The scheme layout has since been altered.

10) Hedgerows are shown as internal plot boundaries. How will

these be secured in the longer term?

2.11 Fences are now provided within the internal plot boundaries.

11) What is the rectangular shape near the south eastern

turning hammerhead,- a sub- station?

2.12 A bin store.

27912/A5/GM 3 September 2020